Compromised machines liable for damage?

Thu Dec 29 10:51:04 UTC 2005

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:20:51 PST, Owen DeLong said:

> Denying patches doesn't tend to injure the trespassing user so much as
> it injures the others that get attacked by his compromised machine.
> I think that is why many manufacturers release security patches to
> anyone openly, while restricting other upgrades to registered users.

Color me cynical, but I thought the manufacturers did that because a security
issue has the ability to convince non-customers that your product sucks, while
other bugs and upgrades only convince the sheep that already bought the product
that the product is getting Even Better!(tm).....
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20051229/cad444f0/attachment.sig>